Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

JPNelsforearm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12064936/Rhodesgate-Campaign-to-remove-Rhodes-statue-is-like-Isils-destruction-of-antiques-says-Oxford-don.html
"The campaign to remove a Cecil Rhodes statue from Oriel College is like Isil’s destruction of antiquities because it is showing no respect for history, a prominent Oxford emeritus fellow has said"

Finally someone steps up and says what needs to be said, academia has cowered in front of these commie loudmouths for far too long, multiculturalism for me but not for thee. Imagine an Irish person demanding any statues/artifects that reflect/laud colonialism in Ireland be removed from UK universities, the audacity.

Samaris

Bah, no, I don't agree with that either. There's no point censoring the past, good or bad. Maybe he was worse than the general outlook of the time, but either way, I don't entirely agree with judging historical figures by modern mores. Bit of a mug's game, it happened, history is history, warts and all.

The Black Oil

https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/678355611600338944

PopePalpatine

Samaris wrote: »

Bah, no, I don't agree with that either. There's no point censoring the past, good or bad. Maybe he was worse than the general outlook of the time, but either way, I don't entirely agree with judging historical figures by modern mores. Bit of a mug's game, it happened, history is history, warts and all.

Perhaps a compromise might be to retain statues of these controversial figures, but also add a plaque that shows us the "warts and all".

JPNelsforearm

https://archive.is/aEbq5
"White men must be stopped: the very future of mankind depends on it".

"The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe."

"This takes an especially pernicious twist when white racism deniers argue that there has always been slavery as though that itself somehow makes it justified. It’s not true that every society over all time has enslaved people. "

"“Where will it all end? Will we have to destroy Mount Rushmore?” some asked. Maybe we should. Not just because it honors slave owners Jefferson and Washington, Mount Rushmore is also a powerful symbol of brutality and racism toward indigenous people.
As idigenous scholar Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz points out in her book, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States, “The most prominent struggle has been the Lakota Sioux’s attempt to restore the Paha Sapa, or Black Hills, where the odious Mount Rushmore carvings have scarred the sacred site."

Standard "Salon", historically illiterate racism. Supreme left wing cuckery. Destroy Mount Rushmore, racism and slavery only matters when Europeans partake in it..

PopePalpatine

"Cuckery"? Oh, you're one of those.

Samaris

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Perhaps a compromise might be to retain statues of these controversial figures, but also add a plaque that shows us the "warts and all".

True, and there's no harm in a bit of extra knowledge and information. Although something in me rails a bit against adding perhaps somewhat irrelevant knowledge just to be conscientious. Someone can do or create something great while being pretty unpleasant IRL. Sometimes it seems we can't admire an achievement without having to punctiliously remind ourselves that the person behind it wasn't a very nice person. Should we remind ourselves on his statues that while a great scientist, Albert Einstein was a dick to his wife? Or that Abraham Lincoln, John Wayne and Teddy Roosevelt were pretty thoroughly racist (first two against Black people, last against Mexicans).

Cecil Rhodes was a fairly unpleasant man overall by the sounds of it, but his actions and intentions in the arena of education were pretty laudable - and effective.

Oooon the other hand, it can be very easy to whitewash the evil things that people have done behind their great works - Nelson Mandela would be another good example. So maybe it's best to acknowledge these things on their commemorations, to avoid the...hah..literal sticking of these people on pedestals.

JPNelsforearm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"Cuckery"? Oh, you're one of those.

Its a hilarious and awesome word, no more needs to be said about the person once its applied. Sure you could cite that this chap wants to tear down Mount Rushmore and presumably every single other edifice of "white supremacy", etc etc and come with descriptors, but calling it cuckery suffices. what would you call it? Ethno-cultural Masochism? Orwellian Year zero communism? Calling him a cuck is a cleaner summation of his intellectual realm and character.

Samaris

Er...what does "cuckery" mean?

JPNelsforearm

Samaris wrote: »

Er...what does "cuckery" mean?

Its a bastardisation of cuckold and cuck. Eg; in the article I posted, you have a white European male decrying "white" eg European culture and history and wanting it to be replaced/destroyed whilst at the same time laying the blame for the entire worlds ills at the feet of every white person man walking the earth currently..
It first came about when it was applied to conservative politicians in the US, whose policies were the antithesis of conservatism, in that they weren't conserving anything....

Its Irish equivalent would be "West Brit" or a "Souper".

MrPudding

Samaris wrote: »

Er...what does "cuckery" mean?

LMGTFY

MrP

PopePalpatine

Samaris wrote: »

Er...what does "cuckery" mean?

Not wanting to revert to 1905, judging by the attitudes of the kind of people who use the term.

EDIT: And MrP's LMGFY link confirms my suspicions.

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

anyway Ill see you and raise, a norwegian anti rape advert which is creating a bit of heat. its a tad misandric imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP7OXDWof30

The video is kind of horrible. You can see on Youtube though that it has 6.5 million views and 15,000 likes. So the message is getting out there and people certainly feel that the content of the video is agreeable.

So, let's take the video from 1:14 to 1:57, shall we?

We see the normal looking girl is kind of drunk/on drugs at a party and she goes and sits next to the normal looking lad on the sofa. Then we see her with her hand round the back of the guys head pulling him in for the kiss, right? Did she get consent for that? That's an escalation from just sitting on the sofa to getting some kissing going. It appears to be instigated by her right?

Dude then instigates another escalation and puts his hand in her jeans. At this point she stops him. He definitely stops though. He doesn't force himself. He doesn't react angrily or aggressively. We don't know if she gave consent for him to touch her but when she stops him he stops. We see her smiling again and trying to hug him (did she obtain consent for that) at this point he brushes her off and then gets up and leaves. What exactly is the problem here?

So whoever was directing this video has shown a story of two young folks at a party fooling around and when things got uncomfortable for the girl she said no and the guy said fine and left her alone. Yet, the voiceover describes it as this kind of creepy or disgusting experience that only happened because men don't respect women. If the intention is to show this to people to "educate" them then I'd say it's a complete failure.

From the point of view of the "Tea Consent" video this would be the right thing to do. The girl said "I don't want tea actually" and the guy says "fine, that's no problem" and doesn't offer any more tea.

From the point of view of the "Dear Daddy" video this is a terrible situation. The boy's father and the girl's father are held accountable for this situation even arising in the first place.

I'm not entirely sure why mothers are not being encouraged similarly? "Dear Parents" seems more a lot more inclusive. I'd be willing to bet that a some of guys who grew up to be violent, angry, abusers were beaten and abused by their mothers. I'd be willing to bet that the abuse they received from they mothers is a corollary factor in their growing up to be abusers themselves. I expect the "Dear Single Mommy" video is currently in production? Oh.

Anyway, we have all these different groups trying to put out their "educational" videos but their message is inconsistent and they sometimes contradict each other where you would actually expect them to support each other.

They are too busy trying to be "clever" with their presentation and as a result they are not actually getting any coherent message across. Does nobody else see that?

I think one of my problems with this video (and the tea video to a lesser extent) is that the people creating these are actually not qualified or competent enough to create and release content dealing with these serious issues.

It's like putting the Catholic Church in charge of videos advising against hard drug use (Heroin etc). No. You need to have people with actual knowledge of the law. You need to have people who can understand studies and statistics. The you need to have someone who can present the facts clearly and concisely. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and actually making a mockery of your own cause.

Are we, as a society, actually trying to teach women to be perpetual victims who can only be saved by men telling each other not to laugh at "insulting jokes"?

Sexual assault and domestic abuse are horrible things. Are the people who've decided that Youtube videos, with high production values, like "#DearDaddy" are an appropriate response to this actually qualified to make that decision. Are they actually capable of competently dealing with and resolving these problems? Or are they simply spreading propaganda?

orubiru

robindch wrote: »

But regardless of whether it is or not, it's certainly the clearest and simplest description of consent that I've ever seen - comments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ

Every time I see this I just think that Tea = Feminism.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its a bastardisation of cuckold and cuck. Eg; in the article I posted, you have a white European male decrying "white" eg European culture and history and wanting it to be replaced/destroyed whilst at the same time laying the blame for the entire worlds ills at the feet of every white person man walking the earth currently..
It first came about when it was applied to conservative politicians in the US, whose policies were the antithesis of conservatism, in that they weren't conserving anything....
.

Do you believe that all races are equal?

Who is "white", exactly?

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Do you believe that all races are equal?

Who is "white", exactly?

I believe in the combined evidence eg: history/scientific progress, evolution and that would point to all "races" not being "equal". "Equality", in the sense that "we were created by a higher power using the same template and are thus truly equal" doesnt exist. Its an impossibility given the evidence and what we know about evolution in animals(humans). The problem with discussing this is that is quickly falls prey to obviously negative historical baggage. I believe in human genetic variance by region and population group would be my answer.

IQ varies by region and people, that certain regions progress while others dont, its evolution. Take East Asians, they score better and are in general more intelligent then Europeans. Are Irish people equal in intelligence to a Japanese person, no, on average they aren't.

Obviously there is a caveat to that, human diversity/evolution being what it is, always produces individuals(or clusters of people within a group) who are outliers at the top end of the bell curve intelligence wise(also physically etc etc) or conversely at the bottom end, so you cant tar anyone with the same brush or make assumptions that because X if from region Y he matches the average genetic make up(IQ wise etc) of a person from region Y. There is not only genetic differences between "races", there is also genetic differences within "races". Obviously the mean holds true for every group.

Im just speaking in terms of measurable intelligence, stuff we have studied, but it holds true in the physical sense also, look at the diversity of the Olympic games, even when you factor in drugs, different "races" have genetic limits that even drugs cannot surpass.

Read the article, ask the writer, he seems to think "all white men" are to blame for all the ills of the world, past and present. He seems to think destroying Mount Rushmore and all aspects of "white" colonialism in the US and the world, which I suppose will take in all infrastructure, electricity etc....
Maybe he can tell you who he considers to be "white", IMO he means to class everyone by skin colour and sex and thus, lump me, 100% Irish as far back as I can find, in with the people who are "solely responsible for ruining the world" solely because I am a "white male".

As to who I think is "white", It depends on the individual/group genetic make up,if it falls into the European category, through that you can classify,as anthropologists do with all distinctive populations and evolutionary sub groups of the same species.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

Broad population categories can be discerned genetically when enough polymorphisms are analyzed, as seen in Figure 3, so these categories are not devoid of biological meaning. When several thousand or more polymorphisms are examined, individual populations, such as Japanese and Chinese, can be delineated34, and members of 'admixed' American populations, such as Hispanics, African-Americans and European-Americans, can be accurately identified34, 49. Similar results are obtained whether coding or noncoding polymorphisms are used49.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I believe in (...........) surpass.

So you're a racist then. Grand. At least you're honest.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

As to who I think is (.....................)

Very modern.

Shrap

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im just speaking in terms of measurable intelligence, stuff we have studied, but it holds true in the physical sense also, look at the diversity of the Olympic games, even when you factor in drugs, different "races" have genetic limits that even drugs cannot surpass.

As you sow, so shall ye reap. You can find "proof" to support your theories around "White race" if you want to, but if the thrust of your research is to go about finding some races to be measurably different in intelligence, then you'll make no friends except fellow racists.

I'll help you out though. You can start by ruling the Irish "race" out of this "white man" grouping with this handy piece of research by a Mr. Charles R. Browne in the late 1800's, where he tried to find evidence of the "deviant criminal type" and prove theories of the "Africanoid Celt".

"When Charles R. Browne came to visit the western coast
of Ireland at the end of the 19th Century, he was no idle
tourist, lazily going from one place to another without
care or worry like the majority of the modern-day
travellers who journey around Slea Head. His was a
scientific journey; a project to study closely the peoples
of that coast in order to compare them to other
communities or races."

"Encouraged by his suggestion to seek out
the Aran Islanders who‘have their own strongly marked
type, in some respects an exaggeration of the ordinary
Gaelic one’, they employed the index of nigrescence as
a core feature of their methods of anthropography.7
Outlining the methods employed to calculate the index
of nigrescence and the cranial and bodily
measurements to ascertain the Cephalic Index,
scientific instruments from the ‘Travellers
Anthropometer’to‘Flowers Craniometer’are identified
by the ethnologists as essential apparatus to reduce
the Aran Islanders to a set of graphic numerical figures."

http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Education/The_Irish_Headhunter_catalogue.pdf

Perhaps you should get your hands on one of those Craniometers so we can all line up across the world to be measured and photographed? That way we could find out who's to blame*, eh? :pac:



*You know, for everything.

silverharp

orubiru wrote: »

From the point of view of the "Dear Daddy" video this is a terrible situation. The boy's father and the girl's father are held accountable for this situation even arising in the first place.

I'm not entirely sure why mothers are not being encouraged similarly? "Dear Parents" seems more a lot more inclusive. I'd be willing to bet that a some of guys who grew up to be violent, angry, abusers were beaten and abused by their mothers. I'd be willing to bet that the abuse they received from they mothers is a corollary factor in their growing up to be abusers themselves. I expect the "Dear Single Mommy" video is currently in production? Oh.

Anyway, we have all these different groups trying to put out their "educational" videos but their message is inconsistent and they sometimes contradict each other where you would actually expect them to support each other.

They are too busy trying to be "clever" with their presentation and as a result they are not actually getting any coherent message across. Does nobody else see that?

I think one of my problems with this video (and the tea video to a lesser extent) is that the people creating these are actually not qualified or competent enough to create and release content dealing with these serious issues.

It's like putting the Catholic Church in charge of videos advising against hard drug use (Heroin etc). No. You need to have people with actual knowledge of the law. You need to have people who can understand studies and statistics. The you need to have someone who can present the facts clearly and concisely. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and actually making a mockery of your own cause.

good observations, I think a video like is a natural outcome of the divisiveness of the noisy 3rd or 4th wave feminists. Im a parent who has a boy and girl so I naturally look at things in the round, id imagine the people involved in these videos are straight out of some gender or woman's studies courses or are the angry lesbian julie Bindel types who just think all men are toxic and we should be in camps.
If someone put a parody of this video together called #dearsinglempther you are going to raise dysfunctional kids or #deardaughterembeyo you are going to to be an awful bitch to your classmates in school, the internet would explode

orubiru

Nodin wrote: »

So you're a racist then. Grand. At least you're honest. Very modern.

You have to be careful here though or we find ourselves shutting down conversation with "you're racist!"

I'd personally find it difficult to nod in agreement with an article that begins with "White men must be stopped: the very future of mankind depends on it" yet here it is http://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/white_men_must_be_stopped_the_very_future_of_the_planet_depends_on_it_partner/

Is this actually an example of racism though? Maybe I only find it objectionable because I am a White Man?

It just seems like the kind of thing you'd hear being spouted by Neo-Nazi types in a Louis Theroux documentary.

Anyway, one of your comments was "Do you believe that all races are equal?". It seems like a misleading question to me.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that there is "human genetic variance by region and population group", as the other poster said.

Do I think all races should be treated fairly? Yes.
Do I think there is a "superior" race? No.
I'd be very suspicious of someone claiming that one race is inferior or one race "must be stopped".

If you grouped the worlds population into racial categories and then surveyed everyone you would surely find trends in the statistics. If you looked at genetic data you would also see trends in the data. These trends would allow you to reach a conclusion that the different races are not "equal". They never will be. I am sure you could do the same with gender or sexuality too.

Should we all be treated equally and fairly though? Yes. Obviously.

I think it's daft to ask someone "do you think all races are equal" when what you actually mean is "do you think everyone should have equal rights and opportunities" or "do you think that everyone should be treated fairly".

It's even more daft to ask someone "do you think all races are equal" and when they point out that different people from different races are obviously going to have genetic differences and so won't actually be equal your response is "ah, so you're a racist!". No. That's ridiculous.

Surely nobody on this thread thinks that "white men must be stopped: the very future of mankind depends on it" is a perfectly reasonable statement?

Nodin

orubiru wrote: »

You have to be careful here though or we find ourselves shutting down conversation with "you're racist!"

I was referring to a person who doesn't believe we share a common ancestor, seemingly believes in some form of "regression" in some populations due to 'interbreeding' and has made the usual illogical inferences comparing the number of nobel prize winners from a developed Western European state and an underdeveloped African one.

tl;dr - I tend to shoot after identifying the target, rather than at the rustle of the bushes.

Nodin

Shrap wrote: »

Perhaps you should get your hands on one of those Craniometers so we can all line up across the world to be measured and photographed? That way we could find out who's to blame*, eh? :pac:



*You know, for everything.

I've written a number of interesting papers on deviations from the norm found in the common Corkonian Cranium which I'd be glad to share with you. I keep rooms at the "Manly Caucusoids Club" off the green, should you wish to peruse them.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

I was referring to a person who doesn't believe we share a common ancestor, seemingly believes in some form of "regression" in some populations due to 'interbreeding' and has made the usual illogical inferences comparing the number of nobel prize winners from a developed Western European state and an underdeveloped African one.

tl;dr - I tend to shoot after identifying the target, rather than at the rustle of the bushes.

LOL, nice misrepresentation, Ive never mentioned, nor am I aware of the effects of "interbreeding" beyond the loss of recessive genes in the offspring(eg sickle cell and the like, which would be a positive thing), so Im not equipped to make statements on it.
I've mentioned inbreeding, primarily in muslim populations where marriage to close blood relations is a cultural fixture for over 1200 years, and has resulted in a rise in both physical and mental regression in addition to a rise in serious genetic disorders. I presume you are familiar with the white southern redneck inbreeding trope and the deliverance type scenarios that ensue?

Inbreeding leads to loss of IQ and mental retardation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC392897/
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?rlz=1C1DVCR_enIE469IE489&ion=1&espv=2&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.110151844,d.ZWU&biw=1366&bih=628&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:6hNvxaGdvASZTM:scholar.google.com/

Inbreeding in muslim/arabian nations
https://books.google.ie/books?id=HDIa0tyllqgC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=inbreeding+arab+culture&source=bl&ots=1qPwBqQfrq&sig=qOSJpl_UKD1fNmaTJ1QHKPqY6Po&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRo8i32vTJAhXDtA8KHbQHCAQQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=inbreeding%20arab%20culture&f=false
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/8544359/Hay-Festival-2011-Professor-risks-political-storm-over-Muslim-inbreeding.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/world/saudi-arabia-awakes-to-the-perils-of-inbreeding.html

Across the Arab world today an average of 45 percent of married couples are related, according to Dr. Nadia Sakati, a pediatrician and senior consultant for the genetics research center at King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh.

Separate studies have found that while British Pakistanis make up three per cent of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.

But hey, yeah, shout me down with cries of racism and misrepresentation of my points.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

LOL, nice (...............) misrepresentation of my points.

Yes, that's so much better.

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, that's so much better.

Science is scary

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Science is scary

I'm sure it is. Do please explain the multi-regional theory regarding evolution, as I find scary tales around Christmas most interesting. Somehow I think my understanding of it differs from your own.

Shrap

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Science is scary

Humans are scary.

JPNelsforearm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/feminism

No word yet from the Guardian feminista's on the mass sexual assault of European women by "North Africans"(nothing to do with Islam of course, cant say that) on the continent on New years eve, they sure do have a lot to say about tampon tax and feminist book groups though..cognitive dissonance.

pH

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/feminism

No word yet from the Guardian feminista's on the mass sexual assault of European women by "North Africans"(nothing to do with Islam of course, cant say that) on the continent on New years eve, they sure do have a lot to say about tampon tax and feminist book groups though..cognitive dissonance.

Ahh, but they don't want to talk about it:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve

Turns out it's white folks fault really, highlighting the sexual assaults on these women before they're ready to talk about it is the major thing worth discussing here.

Also, as it happens, sexual assault isn't as serious if the real motive behind it is robbery - who knows the woman might even enjoy it if she knows that the man is doing it for financial reasons rather than "power".

Really the Guardian is a disgusting rag these days, to think that years ago I bought that paper pretty much every day, now I think in many ways if it was the Guardian or Alive in a waiting room I'd go with alive.

Maybe I'm attaching too much importance to this rag, which now has a daily readership of around 150,000, so its views are important as a modest youtube channel.

KomradeBishop

Just to call out 'nonsense' on the above, I went looking at Guardian articles about those attacks, and found this feminist writer in the Guardian, Gaby Hinsliff - who has written plenty of feminist articles - writing about the attacks:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve